Greenspan Speaks
No, It's Not Fun Writing About This
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Economy — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There are a great many Republicans who feel the way Alan Greenspan feels about the Bush Administration's generally free-spending ways--myself included:
In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles.
In "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," published by Penguin Press, Mr. Greenspan criticizes both congressional Republicans and President George W. Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline.
The book is scheduled for public release Monday. The Wall Street Journal bought a copy at a bookstore in the New York area.
Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."
One wishes that such words were not necessary. One may even make the argument that Republicans should have been elected on issues other than controlling spending. But when a "lifelong" Republican says the kinds of things that Alan Greenspan says, then it is high time that the Republican Party take note and listen.
I will point out, however, that there apparently is a principal player in the Bush Administration who appears to agree with the general thrust of Greenspan's critique:
Cheney shared conservative trepidations about the president's signature education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, which gave the federal government more control over K-12 education. He has griped privately to confidants, such as economist and CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow, about the administration's failure to control spending. And in robust internal White House discussions, he raised concerns about the cost of the administration's decision to expand Medicare to include a new multibillion-dollar drug entitlement, but bowed to the political reality that the president had to fulfill a campaign promise.
"At least in my area, he didn't have a 100 percent batting average," said Conda, the former domestic policy adviser.
In each case, however, Cheney was a loyal soldier, instrumental in helping to sell the president's policies on the Hill and to the Republican base.
"Dick once told me that our president is a 'big-government conservative,'" said former senator Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), in a recollection disputed by Cheney's office. "Now, Dick keeps his opinions to himself whenever he disagrees with the administration, as he should. But I believe that Dick is a small-government conservative."
« Rethinking the Goals of a National Mortgage Bailout — Comments (45) | Perception and Reality in Political Polling — Comments (10) »
Greenspan Speaks 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
1) If the ME weren't full of oil, the only attention we'd be paying them would be to laugh at their clothing. They would have no ability to threaten Israel or anyone else. And there would be no credible threat of three or four less-than-stable and more-than-hostile states acquiring nuclear weapons.
2) If we don't secure the ME in the US sphere of influence, it will almost overnight fall into China's. As things stand, China is buying their way into serious influence in the region through the only means that talks as loudly as serious military resolve: money.
Free-market ideologues like to believe that oil is a fungible commodity with one world price. But one of China's strategic goals is to make that an un-reality.
3) Major wars among nation-states are often fought over ideology (one suspects that this is the only kind of war the Left thinks is worth fighting, and since they also believe that everyone can get along simply by talking, I guess that makes war obsolete).
But the underlying stresses that make war inevitable are almost universally conflicts over strategic resources. To deny that war over oil can be justified is literally to cede the competition to our opponents. To suppose that, having won, they will then let us buy all the oil we want with our copious dollars is lunacy.
I wonder why those Freedom's Watch ads with the Gold Star mom don't say, "Jesse was willing to give his life to keep gasoline under $4.00/gallon."
Or the soldier who lost his legs, "I was willing to fight so that my kids won't have to pay $5.00/gallon."
I know the Middle East has strategic natural resources, but I like to think that "defending America" has not been expanded to "defending the price of certain prized commodities".
...broad assent among the people as a reason for war (as always, the leadership is a totally different story, but in a democracy, you can't go to war without bringing the people along). I can think of four offhand, of which only the first resonates with today's Americans: existential threats to our freedom; preserving chattel slavery; abolishing chattel slavery; and "honor," the historical term for avenging or preempting attacks by others.
Presumably, one of those four (depending on your geography and the moment in time) would be honorable reasons for a young man to die in service of. Fair enough, if you agree with me so far.
But the reason I was careful to use the term "strategic resource" in relation to oil is that the global struggle to secure oil supplies has the ability to devolve into an existential struggle for our freedom.
There are at least two pathways through which this can happen. First, the one we've already seen: oil-rich people facing domestic political instability turn to terrorism. And second, the one that everyone laughs at but that has historical precedents going back to antiquity: denying affordable oil to the United States is a way of achieving political control over us.
One result of a successful resolution of our current conflict is that oil prices will not go through the roof. Just like another result will be the lack of a radioactive crater where Tel Aviv used to be. Neither is the proximate cause of the conflict, which seems to be the confusion.
Moe
PS: Don't ever try to use the image of dead or maimed soldiers to further your political agenda on this forum again. Demonstrate your understanding of this by saying "Yes, Moe." :ka-click: And I don't give a tinker's dam why you did it in the first place.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...that used dead or maimed soldiers. And the people in the commercials believe their sacrifice was for the cause of "freedom" not "oil". I honor them for their valor.
Cheap gasoline, heating oil, fertilizers, plastics, and the rest of the petroleum products we use every day aren't "rights" guaranteed by our Constitution.
If oil prices move even higher, we will draw energy from the oil sands of Canada or the 200 years of coal beneath our soil or the spent uranium of our power plants or the hydrogen fuel cells now in trials. Energy is a commodity, and when its price moves too high, those of us who believe in markets believe substitutes will emerge. I trust the innovative spirit of the American people.
freedom of the seas, freedom to trade, freedom to travel, the freedom to own the fruits of one's labor, freedom from economic strangulation and/or blackmail.
Securing such freedoms has been a war aim from, oh, the War of 1812 to the present day. If you knew jack**** about history, you'd know that.
considered the right to keep the fruits of one's labor, ie private property, to be the right most indispensible to freedom.
see below Charlotte Observer column
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/dfa2684d-e1ef-46e5-a3d8-625e830376f8
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
greatly, and that was before we were nearly as dependent as we are now on foreign oil. If Saddam had or if Iran/al Qaeda would get control of the region, they could hold us hostage. Oil is food in a non-agrarian society. And if the price were to get too high, people would starve.
Worth defending America from that?
I think so.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
...it's also ungraceful as a political statement (perhaps intentionally so), given that few ordinary people understand the ramifications of losing oil supplies as well as he does.
A person who says "I'm not willing to let some volunteer lose his life to keep my gasoline cheap" must implicitly be making one of two assumptions:
1) Winning or losing any kind of war in the ME will have no effect on oil supplies. Or in other words, "whoever ends up with the oil will always need a buyer for it, so we'll always have access to it."
Or 2) Constructing some alternative basis for our economic activity in the absence of stable oil supplies would be no big deal.
The first assumption dangerously ignores all of human history. The second is hubristic, but may be the one we'll have to deal with if the Democrats continue to increase their power.
power and hence the survival of Liberty, and that Greenspan is another bitter old man that is hurt that Bush didn't kiss his a** enough.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
...I wouldn't be surprised if there's some good old-fashioned backseat driving going on too. Heck, that's Bill Clinton's whole profession nowadays.
Interesting thing about Greenspan, too: in addition to polishing his own apple, he's also become a consultant to some notable financial-market players. One of them is Pimco's Bill Gross.
Given this connection (and my inherent cynicism), I'm inclined to scrutinize any statement by Greenspan for its potential effects on the bond markets.
I'm off to church, Gamecock- catch you later.
essentially the first point it true, sellers must have buyers to make a profit, and as we saw with the collapse of OPEC prices, any artificial price regime is unstable and will collapse, though it can cause temporary disruptions.
This might be more of a problem if all of the major oil producers were united, but they are not.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Viz., China. Their energy needs are exploding. They just recently switched from being a net exporter of coal to a net importer (much of their coal-import needs is being met from Indonesia).
The Chinese are very interested in trading certain... things to both Saudi Arabia and Iran in return for guaranteed-supply oil contracts over the next several decades.
Among those things are (do I really need to spell it out?): nuclear weapons, political cover for human-rights abuses in the UN Security Council, military counterbalance against the Russians, etc. etc. etc.
These are goods that no US consumer can offer. All we have to trade for oil is a fictitious and weakening currency.
If China is successful, this will of course eliminate free trade and world-pricing in oil. But that doesn't violate any law of physics, economics, or politics.
Part of the reason that oil is a "strategic" resource is this: not only is it essential for the Chinese regime to secure long-term oil supplies for their own consumption, but it also greatly strengthens them in relative terms if they can keep us from getting access to the oil.
And the namby pamby NIMBY's in FL don't want anyone drilling miles off the FL coast but I believe China is getting oil there off coast of Cuba.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
if the Chinese destroy our economy by freezing us out of the oil market (not that I think it either likely or possible) Who then will buy all their consumer goods?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
...from an export-led to a consumer-driven economy. I rate this as considerably more likely than not, although the timing is hard to predict. And no, I don't think non-consumerist Japan is a valid counterexample.
Also, don't forget that China runs a trade surplus against the Eurozone that is nearly as large as the one they run with us. Their dependence on export markets to the US is not as permanent or as complete as many think. To pretend otherwise serves both their political interests and those of the Democrats.
However, we do represent the greatest strategic threat to them because (at least occasionally) we show enough resolve to intervene militarily to protect our interests.
A great deal of the country-risk associated with the United States is wrapped up in the person of George W. Bush. He's widely viewed around the world as an unpredictable cowboy whom it's best not to provoke. This threat elapses in 2009 and you can expect China (and quite a few others) to be take a few pokes at our next President, to find out what she's made of. (Sugar and spice and everything nice, no doubt.)
By the way, China's overtures to oil and gas producers around the world, to trade non-monetary goods for long-term supply commitments, are a reality, not a theory. Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran are cases in point.
Both Saudi and Iraq will be next in line if/when the US falters in our military commitment to the ME.
But Cuba has no oil, you say? Don't forget about all the oil in the Atlantic coastal waters off the US that Congress won't let us have.
Greenspan also said,
The Dems are going to go nuts over this one. Thanks, Alan.
I think it's pretty simple, really. We care about the Middle East for two very worthy reasons:
1. Israel
and
2. Oil.
No, we didn't go to Iraq to make Halliburton and Exxon rich. But the reality is that the oil must flow freely. Without it, the whole world would suffer. Oil is a critical commodity. It runs your car & heats your home. And look at everything made of plastic; plastic is made from oil.
So yes, we do have an interest in keeping stability is the volatile Middle East. I have no problem with that.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.